Transcript: Questioning of second panel by Rep. Howard Coble

House Judiciary Committee hearing, December 8, 1998

COBLE: Well, I hope I have better luck than you did, Mr.
Chairman.

Let me ask you a question to the panel. You all may not know
this. Do you know how many presidents have been accused of
lying to a grand jury while in office -- a, and b -- how many
presidents have been accused of lying to a court of law, under
oath, while in office -- if you know? Does anyone know the
answer to that?

Well, I take it silence indicates that you do not. Let me
move along then.

OWENS: Mr. Coble.

COBLE: Yes, sir, Mr. Owens.

OWENS: I would only point out that the lies which President
Nixon made were not under oath, but they were material and they
were devastating because he was assuring the American people
that he was enforcing the law, that investigators were getting
to the bottom of the break-in. They were not under oath but
they were devastating because of what they dealt with.

COBLE: My time is running. The reason I ask you -- much has
been made about the historical significance and connection to
impeachment. I wanted to get that historical fact in, if anyone
knew.

Now, many people have compared this crisis to Watergate.
There are similarities and there are distinctions.

I recall, during the days of Watergate, those who opposed
impeachment simply said -- My gosh, it's only a second-rate
burglary. What is the big deal?

Well, it was, indeed, a big deal because it involved
cover-up. It involved obstruction of justice. It involved abuse
of power. It involved the use of government employees, taxpayer
subsidized by the way -- paid by the taxpayers -- to lie, to
evade, to deceive. So it extended far beyond a second-rate
burglary.

Now nearly a quarter of a century later, we hear people who
are opposed to impeachment in this instance. Well, my gosh, it
only involves consensual sex among consenting adults. What is
the big deal?

Well, the big deal may be a duplication of Watergate problems
-- coverup, evasion, lying, deception, using government
employees -- paid for by the taxpayers, I might add again -- to
cover-up. It may go beyond that.

And I resent the fact that some accuse us of vengeance. I
don't mean to speak for anyone, but I suspect very few in the
Watergate era, who sat on that House Judiciary Committee, were
gleeful about that exercise. Now, there may have been one or
two firebrands. There may be one or two firebrands here today
who are gleeful about it.

But I daresay that the great majority of Democrats and
Republicans alike on this Judiciary Committee are not gleeful at
all about this. But I don't think we can afford to dismiss the
facts that have been laid at our feet.

The Constitution requires us to respond. And if we vote in
favor of impeachment, then we are accused of being partisan
firebrands.

COBLE: And I resent it. And I think most Americans will
probably resent it. And I'm getting a little carried away, Mr.
Chairman. But I think I need to say this. And many people have
made a big point, a salient point about the partisanship of this
committee. Well this is an energized, spirited, polarized group
I will admit. And when the television lights are illuminated,
that energy seems to intensify. But for the benefit of our
views, we get along pretty well with another once those TV
lights are extinguished, pretty good group, pretty good men and
women together I might add. Most folks don't know that because
they see the other side of it.

But we're going about our business. And if anybody thinks
that vengeance is involved, I'll meet them in the parking lot
later on tonight.